6 replies to this topic

[PsychoticMuse]

Animal Rights

Summary: Do non-human animals have rights?

Introduction
This debate was originally written by:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom ) and is used in full to sperr further conversation on the given topic. All rights to the original document are given to the author- all opinions expressed hold no barring on the original author but the users/persons who typed them.

Context

The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.

Arguments


Pros
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.


Cons
Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’.

~X~X~X~X~X~X~X~X~X~

I am Pro this debate, simply because there is more to an animal then their pound of flesh. In this animals who are out numbered by the human population who are being run out of their homes and their lives need someone to stand up for them.

Lets not forget that animals are living creatures with just as much right to live on this earth than any human child. With that comes the question are zoo's wrong? Are circus' wrong? Are pet owners defacing the rights of animals?

I don't see why a zoo is wrong so long as the animal is Born in captivity (as now there are enough of them and we don't need to go searching for said animals to remove from their natural habitat.) In fact a zoo helps protect the species of animal that would other wise go extinct.

Are circus' wrong? I don't think so, because what is a circus other then a group of pets showing off their tricks? If you own a dog and get them to sit, stay, roll over, play dead, dance, sit pretty..... your pretty much training your animal for 'show'. Whether or not the entertainment if felt by a few or a great many that's not infringing on the animals rights to live healthy and active lives. What should be asked is 'HOW' is the animal being treated?


What say you? have more to add?

[NeppyNepNep]

I am for this as well, as animals have enough self awareness to feel pain, so they suffer when abused and tortured. I hate people who abuse animals, especially for their sick pleasure. It's wrong. I like it as much as I like Child Abuse and that really pisses me off. And as for the farming. I hate farming that causes animals to suffer throughout their lives such as battery chickens or cows that are shoved into a tiny stable for the entire time they are alive. Free range is for me! I also do not like fur farms, with the animals kept in tiny cages.

I don't think zoos are wrong, providing that they care for the animals and make sure that they are kept healthy and happy. Zoos also get involved with breeding endangered animals, so they help keep a species alive. And circus'...? I've never been to one. But as long as they are treating the animals right, then I'm good with them, too xP

[Manni]

Hmm...I think I have to disagree with people here on technical grounds, not that I believe that animals should be mistreated. I think there's a conflation between animal welfare and animal rights, which don't necessarily mean the same thing. Depending on what rights you give to animals, it could exceed what is meant by welfare.

Okay, to make this clearer, I have to outline what is traditionally meant by rights. By the term 'right', I mean a binding principle of a social, legal or moral nature that entitles the right owner/s to a specific conceptual freedom. Whether it is a right to work, to life, to equality before the law, to the right to be represented in court or so on, it gives the right holder that thing. Rights in the Western political theory are the foundations for civil society and law, what all are given just by being a member of a political community or being human or meeting some sort of morally important criteria. The basis of rights is a debate which is ongoing, whether they are innate or natural or whether they are bestowed upon us by political institutions. By rights being innate or natural, I mean that rights are automatically assumed to be had by the rightholder by nature of them possessing some property like being human. A legal or political right is one that is bestowed upon us by laws via legal and political institutions. This debate is quite important as it tackles issues such as whether rights are defeasible (able to be annulled or voided) or alienable (able to be transferred).

There is also a debate on what rights entail, whether they ask others to actively refrain or assist in fulfilling the right (a claim-right) or just allow the rightholder to obtain the right themselves (liberty right/liscence). If one conceives of a right being a claim right, all have the responsibility to either refrain obstructing the rightholder from the right and actively help them obtain it. If one conceives of rights being liberty rights or lisences, then none has no duty to assistance or If A has a liberty right to 1, then A can have it AS LONG AS THERE IS NO DUTY OR LAW TO NOT DO IT.

If rights are considered indefeasible or inalienable, this would mean that they cannot be taken away or transferred at all. Usually, natural rights theories take the stance of rights being inalienable and indefeasible while legal or political rights can be defeasible or alienable in some respects. But, what do I mean by freedom? The concept of freedom can mean a number of things but it is commonly written in two senses: positive and negative freedoms. Positive freedom is what is usually called 'freedom to' or 'entitlement to have that freedom'. Negative freedom is what is usually termed 'freedom from' or 'what actors must refrain from doing'. As freedom and rights are intertwined, that freedom implies some sort of right or entitlement, that rights also come in negative and positive flavours.

Now, back to the issue of animal rights. ..

If animals had the claim right to freedom in a positive sense, then zoos and circuses would be...a bit morally questionable. Why? Here's my reasoning.

Assuming that freedom is a value that we hold highly, that it is indefeasible and inalienable, and that we should not prevent beings that hold a right to freedom from having it, we should not put animals in zoos and circuses. By putting them in a zoo or circus, we are taking away their freedom to live their lives as they choose. Part of having freedom is having the right to choose how one lives life. Animals might not wish to choose to live in a zoo or circus. By assuming that they do, we take away their freedom to choose and violating their right to freedom...

Of course, if they had an indefeasible and inalienable right to life, it would have a sticky issue of farming or hunting them...

Edited by The Emo One, 13 December 2011 - 13:12 hrs.

[NeppyNepNep]

I know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I also don't think that animals should have identical rights to us, as we see many species as pets and part of the family, so we keep them with us. People love their pets as much as they love another family member. I never mentioned about giving them the right for freedom, although they do deserve it. HOWEVER that would cause many many problems. I do however believe that animals should have the same basic rights as us. The right for food, water, shelter when needed and access to medical treatment when needed. They also have the right to live a good quality life, unlike the examples I gave above. Do you not think animals deserve this? Do they not have the right to live life happy and healthy? Many zoos these days see that animals do have a measure of intelligence and no longer keep them kept up in small cages like they used to. They allow them large enclosures to roam around, and give them simple things to keep them entertained like giving them... I dunno, a pumpkin to keep them active and interested. Doing this leads to them not being bored and having a good quality of life as they provide all the food, water, shelter and medical treatment they need. Most animals end up in a zoo because they were either born there [Through a breeding program or the animals were happy enough to breed since they don't breed when unhappy], they were rescued from terrible conditions or were given to the zoo by people who can no longer handle them for pets [Although now in the UK it is illegal to have an exotic pet like a tiger.] Rights tie in with welfare. If someones basic rights aren't being met, then their quality of life is low.

As animals are not as intelligent as humans, they do not need all the complicated rights. Just the simple ones. Do you really think that they don't deserve that?

[Manni]

Just to make things clear, which I failed to make in my first post, I am in favour of treating animals well. I don't want them tortured or treated like disposable property and attempts should be made to give them as good a quality of life as one can, assuming that human interests are not forsaken in the pursuit of it. However, I am just concerned about the usage of rights to mean just subsistance, when it does mean more. There are such things such subsistence rights, the major ones Neptune has listed and argued for her yet whether they have priority over political and civil rights is a bit controversial. Yes, as loopy as it sounds, the right to representation and not to be killed by others has been argued more important than the right to food and water. Yes, surprisingly, rights to things like water, food and shelter is harder to argue for and get agreement on than political and civil rights. There is still debate on whether subsistence rights are essential to even humans, not even taking into account animals. Even after all this time...you'd think we're nuts =P

It's not that food and water is irrelevant to human survival, the fact is that it's very important if not vital. It's just that it easier to argue for political and civil rights than subsistence rights in that one only has to make sure no one actively blocks political and civil rights. Whether one gets 'fair and equal use' out of the political and civil rights is another question. All that political and civil rights guarantee is that the government does not actively block rightholders from obtaining it, it does not necessarily mean that they are actively helped in doing so.

In the last post, I was trying to be a bit of a contrarian so to get some practice. Hope I didn't hurt people

[Arcadiadic]

My view on the subject is somewhat pro, but at the same time con... I believe its our right to hunt and kill animals should it benefit us in way of survival, being for clothing, food, or whatever else you can think of, but hunting a animal purely for the "fun" of it isnt exactly what I would call fun. There are plenty of beautiful animals in the world being hunted and poached to extinction all in the name of money, or so-called fun.. Im against it in that sense, but in terms of "Do I want to survive?" Then no animal is off limits to me, its kill or be killed after all.

But enough rambling, animals do deserve some rights, not EVERY right as we give humans, but enough rights to which they are protected.

[JamesRaynor]

Animals should be protected from mass slaughter when being killed for things such as Ivory or Pelts. Food is a different matter, however still no animal should be killed more than the population can sustain. Failing to do so leads to issues such as population collapse and possibly the extinction of the animal in question.


However, if an animal is sentiene or otherwise has mental capability that is near-human they should have 'Human' rights. Though if that ever happened I guess it would be called 'Sentient Rights' after we first enslave the species for hard labor for a century. Because humans are bastards at times and do stuff because they can.